It's Another Election Year, Right?

Updated on February 20, 2008

Or, Am I Supposed to Vote?

Like millions of people inhabiting the United States of America, I've become aware of the fact the people are running for office this year, whether it be for that of President or that of dog-catcher (do they still elect dog-catchers or are they appointed? And why would anybody run for that particular office?). And possibly like many American people, I'm not sure about the whole so-called democratic process. I understand that there are too many inhabitants for us to go back to the old "town meeting" way of choosing and electing our nation's leaders; still, considering election years of the not-really-so-distant past, I'm uncertain as to how the choices and elections are made today.

But I've come up with my own theory as to how Presidents of years past have attained their office, simply by studying their names. Remember, not all of them have been useful and honest in serving the nation; remember, not all of them have been distinguished by what actions they took or didn't take while they were in office; and remember, there were a few who headed the nation when times were good. At the time of this writing, the official nominations for President for both the Democratic and Republican parties have not been decided upon. I am not going to consider any third-party selections due to the fact that nobody else ever seems to do so, at least not since Ralph Nader.

At any rate my theory is based upon whether or not the Chief Executive had a name - and by name, I mean both their first and last names - that could be frequently found amongst the population of the U.S. There are, of course, a few that are not very common; but none of them seem to be highly unusual.

Anyone with more than three syllables to either their first or last name doesn't seem to make the grade; after going over the list of former Chief Executives, I couldn't find a one who had that type of name. Fortunately the Governor of California is not eligible for candidacy due to not being born in the USA, and his surname is four syllables long anyways.

It seems the front-runners at present for the Democratic party are Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama; for the Republicans, John McCain would appear to be the choice. According to my theory, Ms. Clinton and Mr. McCain would most likely be the candidates for President of the United States. But what do I know? I'm no political expert with any sort of credentials, but that doesn't seem to stop anyone else from making predictions.

Actually, one thing that really bothers me is when complaining about anyone who's been elected into office, I'm often asked by someone else, "Well, did you vote?" - the implication being, if I didn't vote, then I have no right to complain. I believe the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, while not specifically using the word "complain", guarantees freedom of speech. And to me, that includes the right to find fault with any elected official, whether I had a hand in their election or not! I realize this doesn't have a lot to do with my topic, but I felt I had to include it in this piece.

The American people are great, however, at making the pollsters and experts believe one thing while the outcome proves to be quite the opposite. For example the Presidential election of 1948 - and if you weren't around then, that's no excuse, you can look it up! - was locked up in favor of Thomas Dewey (a suitable name, by my theory) according to the so-called experts. But he was defeated by Harry S Truman (his name also fits my theory), the Democratic incumbent.

What does this all mean? Is it supposed to mean something? I suppose I could say that Mr. Obama could completely throw my theory into the ashcan; it wouldn't be the first time I was wrong. And if he can do the job without screwing it up to much, then I'd be more than happy to admit my error. Besides, it would give me a chance to come up with another weird theory!